The new generation of international relations scholars and researchers in Nepal holds great potential. However, many of their voices are still confined to papers, journals, and seminar rooms. They must learn to engage with the general public more broadly if they are to truly shape public discourse.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Public debate on international affairs in Nepal is often dominated by two sides – simple logic and nationalist hyperbole. The lack of balanced and mature thinking that can connect theory with practice and public interest with policy-making is truly striking. To bridge this gap, we need to build an ecosystem of international relations in Nepal by coordinating the academic, intellectual, and practical diplomatic worlds.
The nature of public debate
Even a cursory study of our media over the past few months reveals some problems. As soon as the Indo-Pakistan conflict began in May 2025, every Nepali commentator suddenly became an expert on South Asian security. However, a deep understanding of the specific form that the Indo-Pakistani conflict has taken due to the nuclear deterrence that has existed for nearly three decades has rarely been seen in public debate.
Since the Kargil War of 1999, due to the potential threat of nuclear war, the phases and components of the Indo-Pakistani conflict have narrowed to limited war rather than developing into a full-scale war. However, with the decisive presence of drones, missile defense systems and emerging technologies, this 2025 conflict has revealed a whole new dimension. Looking back today, it seems that security analysts around the world had not understood the military-strategic significance of this new dimension so closely and so easily before. However, Nepal lacked analysts who could transform it into a serious debate during and after the conflict.
And by June 2025, due to the Israel-Iran conflict, we all started looking like experts on nuclear stockpiles. A few weeks later, the topic turned to maps. Right now, we are blaming geopolitical maneuvering for everything. While such rapid shifts in subject matter are not a problem in themselves, the fleeting nature of the entire intellectual system is certainly hindering the ability to raise the subject in depth.
It would not be appropriate to single out the media for this. We all understand how hostile the media is forced to work in today's era of social media. Competition is fierce, deadlines are constantly shrinking, and the temptation to deliver news and analysis to the general public is immense. However, the media should not be allowed to continue to dwell on such important issues just because they are urgent. If such hastily prepared, simple analyses and commentaries continue to dominate public discourse, deeper and more profound reflections will inevitably be pushed to the sidelines.
The Role of Scholars
We lack such subject matter experts and credible observers who can sustain timely debates and keep ordinary citizens informed and reassured even in times of regional or global instability. This is where the role of international relations subject matter experts and the academic community can be decisive.
People active in the world of policymaking and diplomacy often live in a multifaceted and multilayered reality. Elements ranging from political and administrative traditions to the global culture of diplomacy occupy the largest part of this multilayered reality. Academic theories must be able to explain such multilayered reality of the world of policymaking. Therefore, scholars of international relations must enable themselves to understand and analyze the complexities of the world of foreign policy and the real experiences of policymakers and diplomats.
As long as our economy depends on remittances, the foreign role in protecting the human rights of our migrant workers will be hollow. Limiting this debate to the one-sided and flat advocacy of NGOs or the accounting of remittance-focused government efforts does not do justice to the overall complexity of labor migration and the adverse conditions faced by our youth abroad.
If we are truly serious about improving the quality of foreign policy or international relations debates in Nepal, it is imperative that uncomfortable truths on various issues are not pushed to the margins and brought into the mainstream of public discourse.
Rethinking the holistic security approach
Our approach to security issues also urgently needs to be addressed. The debates we engage in on global crises are often narrowly based and highly self-centered. For example, when conflict erupts in the Middle East, our commentary immediately focuses on the Nepali diaspora there.
It is natural to prioritize the security of our citizens abroad, but such a narrow vision, which plagues us even in times of global crisis, ignores the larger and more serious questions – what are Nepal’s interests at stake in the Middle Eastern regional security chain? How might developments there affect global energy markets, remittance flows, or the diplomatic equation that indirectly affects us?
Similarly, do all conflicts between India and Pakistan become immediate and life-or-death issues in terms of our national security? Or what are Nepal’s direct interests at stake in the South Asian regional security chain? And, what fluctuations do each such conflict bring to the equation of our interests?
In fact, we are exaggerating our risks simply by failing to distinguish between direct threats and indirect effects. States can define and even diagnose their own security interests themselves. Our discourse should be freed from the hyper-nationalist trap of pointing fingers beyond the country's borders for all kinds of domestic problems, which is the same as geopolitical analysis.
In fact, our public discourse should put nationalist hyperbole in the deep-freeze for a while and critically review many non-traditional or soft security issues, from labor migration to climate change, cybersecurity to governance culture. Such non-traditional or soft security concerns are our real challenges, rather than traditional security threats.
Loose and informal networks
Is there a need for an institution to create an ecosystem of international relations by coordinating the academic, intellectual, and practical worlds of diplomacy? The question may arise. Generally not, and it is not even possible at present. Nepal's government and non-government 'think tanks' have their own limitations - lack of financial resources, questions of administrative and ideological autonomy, etc.
One cannot be too confident in the creativity of our universities operating amidst a highly centralized administrative and curricular structure. Therefore, institutionalizing this work now risks creating new boundaries rather than solving the problem. Instead, let us envision a loose and informal network, and an ‘off the record’ dialogue, where all parties involved can communicate openly without the burden of officialdom or formality. Only such networks can ultimately enrich the mainstream debate.
The new generation of international relations scholars and researchers in Nepal holds great potential. However, many of their voices are still limited to research papers, journals, and seminar rooms. If they are to truly shape public debate, they must learn to communicate with the general public at large. They must be channeled through blogs, vlogs, podcasts, social media, and most importantly, the ‘op-ed’ pages of mass media. However, such dialogues can only effectively reach the general public if they can take place in the Nepali language.
